If you reject the BOM does that mean you are not a true Christian?


Luke
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Luke said:

Yet, it is not theirs to deny.  God determines who is a true Christian and it appears this is one of His tests for determining.

I would be uncomfortable if the "Christian" world did whole heartedly accept us....and it would probably mean we were doing something wrong (sort of like RLDS complete apostasy and transition to Community of Christ).

True enough, and I agree with you on this point. Christ promised us that we would be persecuted just as he was, and it's definitely a sign that this is the true church. But, I won't tell anyone the aren't a true Christian if they don't accept the Book of Mormon, which is why I answered your question with a no. While a person's knowledge of Christ and His Gospel may be limited, they can still have a personal relationship with Christ. There are many, many good men and women of the world who are Christians and either don't know the truth, because they don't know where to find it, or they are blinded by the philosophies of men. But I still consider them Christians who do a lot of good in the world and, if the don't accept the fulness of the Gospel in this life, will readily do so in the Spirit World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on WHICH type of Protestant you are.

Lutherans very much believe in the Priesthood I think.

Other Protestants believe that ONLY THE LORD can grant the right to the Priesthood and feel that they get the call personally.  That when this happens something tells them that they are called to the Ministry and that they receive the power to preach and act in accordance directly from the Lord (while most, ironically, at the same time do not believe in Angels or direct revelation or visitation from the Lord himself).

I think that the only requirement to being Christian is to recognize the Savior and to follow him.  The degree to which one does so may differ greatly between individual to individual (as does our reward in heaven), but if one is trying to follow Christ, I feel that makes them a Christian regardless of official sect, religion, or church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

True enough, and I agree with you on this point. Christ promised us that we would be persecuted just as he was, and it's definitely a sign that this is the true church. But, I won't tell anyone the aren't a true Christian if they don't accept the Book of Mormon, which is why I answered your question with a no. While a person's knowledge of Christ and His Gospel may be limited, they can still have a personal relationship with Christ. There are many, many good men and women of the world who are Christians and either don't know the truth, because they don't know where to find it, or they are blinded by the philosophies of men. But I still consider them Christians who do a lot of good in the world and, if the don't accept the fulness of the Gospel in this life, will readily do so in the Spirit World.

I agree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Luke said:

For the sake of this discussion:  someone who sincerely believes the Bible.  Although, LePeel's definition is probably a better one.

Then I would say "of course you can be Christian and not believe the Book of Mormon".  However, I like LePeel's definition better as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Luke said:

Yet, it is not theirs to deny.  God determines who is a true Christian and it appears this is one of His tests for determining.

I would be uncomfortable if the "Christian" world did whole heartedly accept us....and it would probably mean we were doing something wrong (sort of like RLDS complete apostasy and transition to Community of Christ).

I'm having trouble understanding how you're conflating "believing the Bible" with "being a Christian."  They are related, certainly.  But they are not equivalent.

You can believe that Christ is your Savior and not really believe MOST of what is said in the Bible.  Not only that.  But the dictionary definition of Christian does not necessarily require it.

Instead, how about use the word "Saint"?  The early followers of Christ called themselves Saints.  We call ourselves the Latter-day Saints.  No other faith does so.  Referring to @LePeel's comment earlier, we are the only Saints.

Follow the following etymological path:

  • "Saint" comes from the word "sanctus".  This indicates that a Saint is a "holy person".
  • "Holy" has many meanings.  But I believe the reference to our meaning of "Saint" is that of "something consecrated for a divine purpose."
  • "Consecrated" means "dedicate to a specified purpose."
  • When applied to people, that sounds an awful lot like making a covenant.
  • So the Saints are the covenant people.

"Christian" is a term that was used originally as an epithet (much like "Mormon").  But it became co-opted by the early Saints.  And they eventually lost the covenant aspect of their worship.

Today, we are the only Christian faith who makes covenants in this manner.  And we are the only faith with proper priesthood authority to bind ourselves to covenants on earth which are also bound in heaven.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, that's an Authority trooper from Half-life 2, of course!  Where have you been man?

I just came through the jump gate from Delphinius Prime.  How 'bout you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

.Instead, how about use the word "Saint"?  The early followers of Christ called themselves Saints.  We call ourselves the Latter-day Saints.  No other faith does so.  Referring to @LePeel's comment earlier, we are the only Saints.

Follow the following etymological path:

  • "Saint" comes from the word "sanctus".  This indicates that a Saint is a "holy person".
  • "Holy" has many meanings.  But I believe the reference to our meaning of "Saint" is that of "something consecrated for a divine purpose."
  • "Consecrated" means "dedicate to a specified purpose."
  • When applied to people, that sounds an awful lot like making a covenant.
  • So the Saints are the covenant people.

"Christian" is a term that was used originally as an epithet (much like "Mormon").  But it became co-opted by the early Saints.  And they eventually lost the covenant aspect of their worship.

Today, we are the only Christian faith who makes covenants in this manner.  And we are the only faith with proper priesthood authority to bind ourselves to covenants on earth which are also bound in heaven.

Many protestants consider themselves saints.  One definition of saint, according to Mirian Webster, is  one of God's chosen and usually Christian people.

Often in new testament letters, Paul and other writers address the group of believers as saints.

According to the catechism of the Catholic church, the church is the holy people of God, and her members are called 'saints'.

And protestants are covenant people as well; the new covenant that Jesus spoke of.

Many protestants also consider themselves priests as well, and would disagree with your assertion about proper priesthood authority.  "You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood" 

So, LDS are not the only ones referring to themselves as a "saint" or "priest".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

Many protestants consider themselves saints.

You know, I was not aware of that.  Thank you.

So, which sects do this regularly?  And by that, I mean, refer to themselves as "Saints" when they describe who they are to other people whether in the faith or outside the faith.

Is it in casual conversation or only in deep doctrinal discourse mode?

I was aware of the history in the Bible, of course.  But my personal experience has been that protestants have scoffed at me when I say we call ourselves "Saints".  And this was not because they equated it with "Christian".  It was because they thought we were calling ourselves the type of "Saint" that the Catholic Church canonizes.  That was THEIR perception.  So, I naturally assumed they were expressing their beliefs.

It is this experience that leads me to believe there are not many who do.  But if you know of some, I'd be interested in which ones do so -- in order to get to know them better.

@prisonchaplain does AOG practice this?  Do you know of others who do?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You know, I was not aware of that.  Thank you.

So, which sects do this regularly?  And by that, I mean, refer to themselves as "Saints" when they describe who they are to other people whether in the faith or outside the faith.

Is it in casual conversation or only in deep doctrinal discourse mode?

I was aware of the history in the Bible, of course.  But my personal experience has been that protestants have scoffed at me when I say we call ourselves "Saints".  And this was not because they equated it with "Christian".  It was because they thought we were calling ourselves the type of "Saint" that the Catholic Church canonizes.  That was THEIR perception.  So, I naturally assumed they were expressing their beliefs.

It is this experience that leads me to believe there are not many who do.  But if you know of some, I'd be interested in which ones do so -- in order to get to know them better.

@prisonchaplain does AOG practice this?  Do you know of others who do?

Sorry, my bad.  I don't know of any Protestant denomination that regularly (or even occasionally) uses the word saint when describing who they are to others.  But several would acknowledge saint (not in a Catholic way) or priest as part of their identity/role/function.   

I'm not LDS, but I never really noticed the word saint in LDS any more than in the phrase New Orleans saints.  Now I am not trying to be insulting at all when I say that.  The Methodists don't have a corner on the market of having a method any more than the Baptists are able to submerge someone.  The phrase saint has such a wide connotation across all of religiosity I would hesitate to focus on it.  To me it seems to get lost in the frequent abbreviation LDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, which sects do this regularly?  And by that, I mean, refer to themselves as "Saints" when they describe who they are to other people whether in the faith or outside the faith.

Is it in casual conversation or only in deep doctrinal discourse mode?

 

@prisonchaplain, does AOG practice this?  Do you know of others who do?

Yes, but not as much as in previous generations. I've heard ministers say things like, "All right, saints, let's worship, look to our Bibles, get out in the harvest field (witness), etc." The idea conveyed is that we are a holy people, and "saint" communicates the idea of a holy person. Sanctification is the process of becoming holy. Ironically, the word saint might end up making a comeback, since it is gender-neutral, unlike the more common "brothers and sisters." So yes, we use it, and mostly casually, and, for now, mostly it is a word the older generations favored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Yes, but not as much as in previous generations. I've heard ministers say things like, "All right, saints, let's worship, look to our Bibles, get out in the harvest field (witness), etc." The idea conveyed is that we are a holy people, and "saint" communicates the idea of a holy person. Sanctification is the process of becoming holy. Ironically, the word saint might end up making a comeback, since it is gender-neutral, unlike the more common "brothers and sisters." So yes, we use it, and mostly casually, and, for now, mostly it is a word the older generations favored.

57 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

Sorry, my bad.  I don't know of any Protestant denomination that regularly (or even occasionally) uses the word saint when describing who they are to others.  But several would acknowledge saint (not in a Catholic way) or priest as part of their identity/role/function.   

I'm not LDS, but I never really noticed the word saint in LDS any more than in the phrase New Orleans saints.  Now I am not trying to be insulting at all when I say that.  The Methodists don't have a corner on the market of having a method any more than the Baptists are able to submerge someone.  The phrase saint has such a wide connotation across all of religiosity I would hesitate to focus on it.  To me it seems to get lost in the frequent abbreviation LDS.

Thank you both.   I truly did find it to be interesting news.  I just spoke with a Baptist friend of mine about this.  He said that basically they acknowledge the scriptural meaning of Saints.  And in that context do understand that they are to be called Saints.  And many times over the pulpit, the minister will call the congregation "saints."  But it is not the "Standard" self-designation by any means.

What makes this particularly interesting is the recent policy change regarding the use of the term "Mormon".  We have been urged to call ourselves "Latter-day Saints" or "Saints" for short. This really was always the policy.  But the ease of using the term "Mormon" made it used much less often than it should be.

When I think of it, the difference is that we always recognized that "Saints" was our official appellation.  But "Mormon" was just a nickname.  From what my friend said, it seems that they use "Christian" as their official appellation and "Saints" is simply a recognized historical term only used in some contexts.

Do you make what would be equivalent to what we consider "covenants"?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Klaymen said:

To me it seems to get lost in the frequent abbreviation LDS.

Sorry, forgot to address this.

Yes, it has.  And that's part of the recent policy change.  We often don't use "LDS" as a noun (which it clearly is).  We usually use it as an adjective "The LDS Church" and so forth.  So, this is also to be discontinued.

We as a people are the "Latter-day Saints".  But the Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Because of this change, I've introduced myself as "a Latter-day Saint" to others.  This is Texas.  A lot of people are very religious and want to know.  It is interesting how fast news goes around.  Several have commented,"Oh, right.  You don't call yourselves Mormon anymore."

I tend to inform them that some people never did.  That "Latter-day Saint" has always been our official name for ourselves.  But "Mormon" was just too short and simple to not use more often.  But we are trying to go away from that more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus addressed this very question when he said, "Not everyone that says unto me L-rd - shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven".  In short not everybody that thinks they are a Christian - actually is.  Jesus also taught the many will think because they did things in the name of Christ - that such would qualify as being a Christian.    Our English translation says that Jesus will respond by saying he never knew them.  There are many experts in ancient languages that say it would be better if this was translated as "I never authorized you".

There has already been some discussion concerning "Authorization".  I suspect that this means something different that many think - especially those that think that doing things in the name of Christ because you learned the name from reading scripture - are going to be disappointed. 

But I would make one last point - that is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church I know of that authorizes redemption of the dead through temple work.  Which leaves other wondering if Baptism is necessary or if those unbaptized will be damned.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

But I would make one last point - that is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church I know of that authorizes redemption of the dead through temple work.  Which leaves other wondering if Baptism is necessary or if those unbaptized will be damned.

 

The Traveler

 

I had that very discussion this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do you make what would be equivalent to what we consider "covenants"?

Not precisely. Liturgical churches have in their liturgies prayers and commitments. Additionally, in many baby dedications and water baptisms there are pledges--spiritual promises--made. Church weddings include vows, of course. However, based upon the very fleeting references I have encountered here to Temple covenants, they seem to be much more extensive, intensive, and sobering. My only counsel to members who might seek my counsel would be that if one makes promises to God they are bound to keep them. I would imagine that there is some preparation before members participate in these covenants, right?

I just thought of an example I encountered. I read a book by a former member (he might have been a bishop at one point), who became an Evangelical minister. He experienced the temple, and did recount his feelings about the experiences. However, despite being what some would call an "Anti," he did not divulge any details or content from the temple. He said he never would, because he made covenants not to, and believed he was bound to God by them even though he left the church. I found that admirable.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

Jesus addressed this very question when he said, "Not everyone that says unto me L-rd - shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven".  In short not everybody that thinks they are a Christian - actually is.  Jesus also taught the many will think because they did things in the name of Christ - that such would qualify as being a Christian.    Our English translation says that Jesus will respond by saying he never knew them.  There are many experts in ancient languages that say it would be better if this was translated as "I never authorized you".

There has already been some discussion concerning "Authorization".  I suspect that this means something different that many think - especially those that think that doing things in the name of Christ because you learned the name from reading scripture - are going to be disappointed. 

But I would make one last point - that is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church I know of that authorizes redemption of the dead through temple work.  Which leaves other wondering if Baptism is necessary or if those unbaptized will be damned.

 

The Traveler

I'm not sure I understand the last portion of your post.

From my thoughts, it is that no one will have to worry about whether they are unbaptized or not, as Baptism for the Dead, in theory, will eventually be done for all those who were not Baptized in this life.

It is their choice whether to accept the ordinance or not.

If they choose NOT to accept it, then I think they would end up with a form of eternal punishment.  I also think that this can quickly (or at least eventually) change someone's mind.  We know that every knee shall bow eventually, which implies that almost all will accept the ordinances to at least be able to enter the Telestial Kingdom at some point (or so I would imagine).

For me, this means accepting Baptism to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (any portion of it), but I may also have flawed logic and reasoning pertaining to this (as I have also heard some say Baptism is just a requirement to enter the Celestial...but to my thoughts it is more broad and applies to those entering period, including the Telestial perhaps?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
20 hours ago, Traveler said:

But I would make one last point - that is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church I know of that authorizes redemption of the dead through temple work.  Which leaves other wondering if Baptism is necessary or if those unbaptized will be damned.

I'm not sure I understand the last portion of your post.

From my thoughts, it is that no one will have to worry about whether they are unbaptized or not, as Baptism for the Dead, in theory, will eventually be done for all those who were not Baptized in this life.

It is their choice whether to accept the ordinance or not.

If they choose NOT to accept it, then I think they would end up with a form of eternal punishment.  I also think that this can quickly (or at least eventually) change someone's mind.  We know that every knee shall bow eventually, which implies that almost all will accept the ordinances to at least be able to enter the Telestial Kingdom at some point (or so I would imagine).

For me, this means accepting Baptism to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (any portion of it), but I may also have flawed logic and reasoning pertaining to this (as I have also heard some say Baptism is just a requirement to enter the Celestial...but to my thoughts it is more broad and applies to those entering period, including the Telestial perhaps?).

I think Traveler is trying to express what is know as the Soteriological Problem: If there are are requirements for salvation (profession of faith, sinner's prayer, baptism, etc), and there are people for whom the requirements are never offered (they never hear the name "Jesus", let alone are told how to be saved), then how is the justice of God restored (surely he doesn't damn them? but then, he can't save them if they don't meet the requirements?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mordorbund, @JohnsonJones an others.  There is a problem with baptism.  If there is any advantage, benefit or blessing for anyone that is baptized - how can it be argued that G-d is just.  @mordorbund pointed a big part of this problem.  But if baptism is not necessary or provides no benefit - Why was anyone baptized anciently?   The justice of G-d is challenged on many levels both for those receiving baptism and those that are not baptized (regardless of reason).  The only possible way that someone could believe that G-d is a just G-d is if there is something either before birth or after death - or both - that is left out of Traditional Christian theology.  In short - without the addition of the theology offered in modern scripture; Christianity fails.

But now I must admit to setting a little logical trap - but no one made reference to the Book of Mormon where Jesus tells the Nephits that not every one will be saved in the kingdom of Heaven - that Jesus will say , "I never knew you".  I mentioned that many Biblical scholars believe that Jesus meant that he never authorized them.  There is a bit of a problem.  How could an "All Knowing" G-d not know someone?  The concept of "knowing" someone does not come across well in the translation.  An example is like when Abraham "knew" his wife and she boar a son.  Many think this is a reference to sex or intimacy.  But this is a problem in translating ancient scripture.  

What is missing in the understanding of covenant, especially the covenant between G-d and man.  Thus for a man to "know" G-d or for G-d to "know" a specific or individual man there must be a covenant.  When Abraham "knew" his wife - it means that they made a covenant both with each other and with G-d.  But if someone thinks to make a covenant on their own with G-d - then the covenant would never be complete - thus G-d would not know the individual by covenant.  

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - we are taught that covenant is more than an ordinance.  We know from the D&C that covenants must be sealed by the Holy Ghost.  Again No other Christian Church seems to understand this very important and essential principle - the reason is because they are not authorized to establish divine covenants which can even be sealed by the Holy Ghost in the first place.  And so it is that this missing principle skews the understanding leaving the process incomplete - But not to worry because G-d will complete all things - it is just that only the Saints of G-d understand the principle and therefore only such Saints will be able to complete this process or principle of covenant.  Which means this thread cannot address the problem without understanding the redemption of the dead and temples.

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share